ABSTRACT

CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN AYN RAND’S

“PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT”

Ilya Startsev, M.A.

Department of English

Northern Illinois University, 2015

John D. Schaeffer, Director

This thesis analyzes metaphorical constructions in Ayn Rand’s speech and

essay, “Philosophy: Who Needs It.” Metaphors as condensed analogies and

Lakovian conceptual metaphors play an important role in constructing Objectivist

worldview and reframing the audience’s views. Rand identifies philosophy by

using three metaphors: Mind Is Computer, Life Is a Battle, and the novel

Philosophy Is War. The frames derived from the metaphorical constructions are

intercompared through some Objectivist non-fiction to show a consistent

worldview. Rand’s rhetoric is also known to influence movement conservatives,

and this connection is found through conceptual metaphors Capitalism Is God’s

Will and the Strict Father morality.

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

DE KALB, ILLINOIS

MAY 2015

CONCEPTUAL METAPHORS IN AYN RAND’S

“PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT”

BY

ILYA STARTSEV

©2015 Ilya Startsev

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE

MASTER OF ARTS

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

Thesis Director:

John D. Schaeffer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

METAPHORICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 9

1. Mind Is Computer Metaphor ......................................................................... 17

2. Life Is a Battle Metaphor .............................................................................. 26

3. Philosophy Is War Metaphor......................................................................... 32

4. Capitalism Is God’s Will Metaphor .............................................................. 41

CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................................................................ 51

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 53

INTRODUCTION

Ayn Rand was a moral radical and one of the twentieth century’s most controversial

figures. Her own philosophy of Objectivism is hardly approved and usually is overlooked by

most academicians, albeit with rare views to the contrary (e.g., Burns, 2009). Rand’s conflict

with academe was philosophical and perpetuated by her followers, especially the Ayn Rand

Institute, headed by Leonard Peikoff, the most prominent Objectivist scholar. A common ground

for understanding can hardly be found and the attempt is only undermined by sometimes acrid

remarks from both sides. However, many of Rand’s essays may be interesting for academic

research, and a serious look could either help bridge the schism or worsen the standoff. With this

in mind and with the various challenges of reconciling such vastly separated views, I have

chosen one of Rand’s essays for a more in-depth, rhetorical look. Before analyzing her rhetoric,

however, we first need to have a brief survey of her life. The most recent and intriguing

biography of Ms. Rand is by Jennifer Burns.

Jennifer Burns’s Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (2009) is an

account of most of Rand’s life. Rand was born Alisa Z. Rosenbaum in the Russian Empire eight

days after the beginning of the Revolution of 1905, which started due to social unrest and was a

precursor to the Socialist Revolution. At the age of thirteen, Rosenbaum proclaimed herself an

atheist. She fell in love with the romantic heroism of Victor Hugo’s novels and perhaps with the

heroic acts of the anti-Christian revolutionaries at the time. She also became an anti-communist,

following her father’s views, especially after his pharmacy business had been twice confiscated.

2

Before she immigrated to America and changed her name to Ayn Rand, she studied history and

philosophy, among other subjects, at the University of Petrograd (now St. Petersburg), from

where she graduated with a three-year degree. The biography shows Rand’s strained and

virtually nonexistent relationships with her peers in school, her academic prowess and genius in

argumentation, her negative attitude toward her mother and her withdrawn admiration of her

father, her inclination to cut ties with her family after she moved to the U.S. (pp. 19ff., 47), and

her abandonment of friendships with people who influenced her ideas and whom she met in

America. For example, the conflicts she had with Isabel Paterson, a popular journalist who

helped Rand and was one of her teachers, caused their relationship to weaken, end, and never

rejuvenate again because of Rand’s anti-theistic views, her independence, and self-sufficient

nature (pp. 131ff., 138ff.). Isabel Paterson and Ayn Rand greatly inspired the libertarian

movement. Rand held that belief in God is inessential, and it is interesting to note that she

disregarded her friend’s metaphors and theism and only praised the individualistic qualities of

Paterson’s book dealing with political theory (Cox, 2007).

Once Rand became a successful novelist, she quickly lost interest in her previous

relationships and tried to differentiate herself as much as possible from previous philosophic

influences. Burns shows that Rand wanted to create a rational alternative to religion (pp. 285ff.).

Although Burns is somewhat critical of Objectivism--“Objectivism as a philosophy left no room

for elaboration, extension, or interpretation, and as a social world it excluded growth, change, or

development” (pp. 5ff.)--she nonetheless argues that Objectivism and Rand are historically

significant. Rand inspired a large following, helped start new movements, and greatly influenced

3

other philosophies. Her ideas are now selectively applied by movement conservatives, in

particular neoconservatives and the Religious Right.

At the height of her career, Rand created and maintained a “cult” in the 60s, called the

Nathaniel Branden Institute (NBI). This “cult” has been criticized in many accounts, two of

which were written by former Objectivist members. Murray Rothbard’s The Sociology of the Ayn

Rand Cult (1972) mainly deals with the negative aspects of Rand’s establishment and how “the

grim, robotic, joyless Randian Man emerged.” Rothbard was a libertarian economist who was at

first very interested in Objectivism and praised Rand’s genius, but whose conflicts with Rand

and her right-hand man at the time, Nathaniel Branden, made him despise these individuals

(Burns, p. 184). Rand also had a falling out with Branden and consequently closed the institute

they both formed. Branden’s The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A

Personal Statement (1984) was published after Rand passed away. It deals with the flawed

psychology they employed at the institute--how they caused their followers to repress emotions,

encourage dogmatism, and follow Rand’s “scientific conservatism, a suspicion of novelty.”

Nonetheless, he defends the positive nature of her philosophy, “a powerful message of hope in

her work,” affirmation of existence, and glorification of human potential.

Objectivism is a philosophy expressed in Rand’s two major novels, The Fountainhead

(1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957), her non-fiction (1964, 1966, 1982, 1990), and in the books of

her leading follower (Peikoff, 1991, 2012b). Although Objectivism is based on abstract axioms,

it is portrayed as being human-centered and individualistic. Objectivism’s moralism drives its

practitioners to strive for virtues and to oppose altruistic, selfless duty. The Objectivist ethics was

summarized by Ayn Rand in one of her editions of Atlas Shrugged:

4

Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The

proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man—i.e., that which is required by man's

nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a

mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are:

reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the

ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor

sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the

achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life. (Rand,

“Essentials”)

Rand boldly called her ethics egoism but differentiated it from common perceptions of

subjective egoism by concentrating on rational self-interest. She accepted Aristotle’s definition

of man as a rational animal, reason as an absolute, and happiness as the goal of life. In order to

live happily and survive, an egoist has to accept natural reality as absolute and non-theistic (the

axiom of existence), use his or her faculty of identifying aspects of reality that pertain to his or

her life (the axiom of consciousness), be able to use and value objects so identified for

productive purposes (as required in laissez-faire free-market capitalism), and know that any

object, including a human being, has a nature derived from its own identity (the axiom of

identity). Each individual thus can find his or her purpose in life without any dependence on an

outside authority. Examples of such productive, independent, and creative individuals abound in

Rand’s fiction.

In addition to Aristotle, Rand praised the political system of capitalism and the original

United States as being the prime example of it. Her conflict with other philosophies strengthened

her defense of capitalism, a defense now used by modern conservatives. Rand (1982) said in her

speech to the West Point graduates in 1974:

Not all philosophies are evil, though too many of them are, particularly in modern

history. On the other hand, at the root of every civilized achievement, such as science,

technology, progress, freedom—at the root of every value we enjoy today, including the

5

birth of this country—you will find the achievement of one man, who lived over two

thousand years ago: Aristotle. (p. 9, original emphasis)

Aristotle was indeed a great inspiration for Rand, and so were the founding fathers. Rand

et al. (1966) interpreted the meaning of the founding fathers’ belief in the right of life, liberty and

the pursuit of happiness as “the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational

being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life” (p. 288).

Rand praised the original founding principles of the United States and painted them as the only

moral principles in the world. Her approval of the founding fathers was not absolute, however.

She alluded to contradictions of the founding fathers, such as their belief in God and their

omission of selfishness, because, to her, selfishness is essential for survival, and the belief in

God is not essential. Similarly, she criticized the conservative argument from faith in defense of

capitalism (pp. 197ff.). To persuade, Rand not only used stories and appeals to emotions, but she

also wanted to convince her audience of “the truth,” thus attainting absolute adherence. To help

her in this, she used metaphors to reshape her audience’s views.

The learning process consists of grasping something unknown by comparing it to

something known. Playing a key role in this process to assist in understanding, metaphors are

widely used. Although metaphors were mostly understood as stylistic devices for poetic

expressions, the ancients found additional uses for them. Aristotle stresses, in his Rhetoric,

metaphor’s powerful effect in public speeches but also that it “most brings about learning” and

helps in perceiving things (1411.a2). For Cicero, when it is not “far-fetched,” metaphor can be

used “in order to make the meaning clear” in “the plain style for proof” (Bizzell & Herzberg,

2001, pp. 339ff.). In the modern era, metaphors have been conceptualized as fundamental to

experiencing the world.

6

Cognitive scientists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, in their Metaphors We Live By

(2003), explain how metaphors can be structural, ontological, or orientational. They show that

the conceptual metaphor Argument Is War is structural, since argument is expressed in terms of

war (pp. 3ff.). Argument is used as if it were a weapon and fought as if with weapons--it can hurt

or even kill. Argument can be won or lost as on a battlefield and conducted as during a war.

When argument is partially structured in terms of war, our common concept of argument,

argumentation itself, and language of argument as hostile rather than cooperative are

metaphorically structured. This partial mapping of features from the known source domain to the

to-be-known target domain is at the core of the theory of conceptual metaphors.

Another way to look at the same metaphor is ontologically (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003, pp.

25-32). An argument becomes an entity and is equated with being. It has a cause, a time frame,

and a point of reference. You can refer to an argument, quantify it, and set goals for it as if it

were a substance or an entity. It could also be metonymically personified. The concept of an

argument can come into existence by conceptually entailing some tools or generals of war, if this

is a common experience of an argument. When viewing the concept of an argument, its

ontological emergence may become inseparable from war,1 its conceptual source domain, and

indeed may be enriched by it (cf. Lakoff, 2002, p. 256).

Another type of metaphor is orientational (Lakoff et al., 2003, pp. 14-21). An example

that Lakoff and Johnson give is Happy Is Up metaphor. They explain that orientational

metaphors have a spatial reference based on our physicality. When we think about happiness, we

experience it in terms of our bodies. When it is up, it is higher, taller, bigger, and thus more and

1 This cultural frame screens out another frame of argument as dance or love, in which argument emerges as a beautiful and cooperative experience attained by understanding rather than fighting each other.

7

better, and it relates to our posture during this state as well as to the position of the main

perceptual organ--our brain. Therefore, Lakoff and Johnson conclude that metaphors are

conceptual and directly relate to the way we experience the world, the way we think about it and

express it in words. This new understanding of metaphors shows that conceptual metaphors are

conventional and mostly unconscious and that they are embodied, i.e., reflected in connecting

neurobiological and cognitive levels (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999, pp. 94ff., pp. 476-481).

The rhetorician Chaim Perelman (1982) defines metaphors as condensed analogies:

From the analogy a is to b as c is to d, the metaphor takes one of these forms: a of d, c of

b, a is c. From the classical example of analogy, ‘old age is to life what the evening is to

the day,’ we derive the metaphors ‘old age of the day,’ ‘evening of life,’ or ‘old age is an

evening.’ (p. 120)

For Perelman, the most general meaning of a metaphor is any type of speech “in a context which

excludes its literal meaning” (p. 121). However, Perelman would agree with Lakoff and Johnson

that metaphors even permeate our most objective endeavors. In the sciences, metaphors play an

important role--a role that helps scientists orient their investigations and construct their theorems.

For example, the “imaginary fluids” metaphor helped James Clerk Maxwell create his

mathematical theorems (Berggren, 1963), and the “typing monkeys” metaphor is used by Seth

Lloyd (2006), one of the leading quantum engineers at MIT, to understand the origins of the

Universe. Perelman (1982) compares scientific metaphors to “scaffolding” that can be taken off

once an objective methodology is reached (p. 115). In philosophy, metaphors similarly play a

role to promote a rationalistic ideology. The Allegory of the Cave helped Plato in structuring his

philosophy. Similar metaphors persuade other thinkers of the primacy of consciousness.

On the other hand, some philosophers, like Descartes and Locke, are opposed to

metaphors and rhetoric in general. Rene Descartes used a metaphorical expression, “the chain of

8

ideas,” in his reasoning without realizing that it can be interpreted quite differently in other

languages. His “Knowing Is Seeing” and “Seeing Is Touching” metaphors convinced many to

interpret them literally (see Lakoff & Johnson, 1999, pp. 330-3). Today, the axiomatic

philosophy of Objectivism created by Ayn Rand proclaims, similar to Descartes, that metaphors

“cannot give philosophic answers” (Peikoff, 2012a, Ch. 1, “Integration as Man’s Means of

Knowledge”). However, it is my contention that even Rand used conceptual metaphors to

reframe the experience of her audience and persuade them to follow her philosophy. In

particular, I will show how conceptual metaphors Mind Is Computer, Life Is a Battle, and

Philosophy Is War can be derived from Rand’s worldview based on her speech and essay,

“Philosophy: Who Needs It,” along with some other writings by her and her main follower,

Leonard Peikoff. Additionally, their worldview is connected to the conceptual metaphors used by

movement conservatives, specifically Capitalism Is God’s Will and the Strict Father morality

(Lakoff, 2002, 2014), and this will be shown to play a key role in the conservative response to

Objectivism.

METAPHORICAL ANALYSIS

“Philosophy: Who Needs It” is based on the speech Rand gave to the graduating class of

1974 at the United States Military Academy at West Point. This essay is included in her last

work to be published and was one of her favorite essays, from which the book takes its name. In

Leonard Peikoff’s introduction to Philosophy: Who Needs It (1982), as well as in the essay itself,

Rand is portrayed as the greatest “salesman of philosophy” and her ethics as the “means to the

rebuilding of New York City and of man’s soul” (p. vii). She was “selling” capitalism--her

philosophy--to the men and women who were going to help defend the country from invaders.

She considered it an honor to be there and prepared her speech for great impact. To convince her

audience, she used several metaphors and an analogy, which is in the form of a story teaching a

moral lesson. Thus the story beings: “Suppose that you are an astronaut whose spaceship gets out

of control and crashes on an unknown planet. When you regain consciousness and find that you

are not hurt badly, the first three questions in your mind would be: Where am I? How can I

discover it? What should I do?” (p. 1). For Rand, these questions directly pertain to philosophy.

The manner in which the astronaut attempts to answer these questions shows the kind of

philosophy that he or she accepts. The analogy, “person is to our planet what the astronaut is to

the alien planet,” is expressed in any of the following forms: “person of the alien planet,” “the

astronaut of our planet,” or “person is the astronaut.” This metaphor will clarify Rand’s views of

human nature and philosophy. Meanwhile, the story continues:

You see unfamiliar vegetation outside, and there is air to breathe; the sunlight seems

paler than you remember it and colder. You turn to look at the sky, but stop. You are

10

struck by a sudden feeling: if you don’t look, you won’t have to know that you are,

perhaps, too far from the earth and no return is possible; so long as you don’t know it,

you are free to believe what you wish—and you experience a foggy, pleasant, but

somehow guilty, kind of hope. (p. 1)

Using personal pronouns, Rand helps project the audience into the astronaut. The

environment where you as the astronaut find yourself is somewhat similar to Earth. There is air

to breathe, but species of fauna look different. The action of not looking at the sky is chosen

because of a blind, “foggy” belief that provides a comfort of hope, a specious short-term reward.

The kind of guilt that comes with believing in hope has a double nature, a mixture of

conflicting views that Rand uses to bring in most of her audience, whether theist or atheist. She

portrays a person of faith in secular fashion. The guilt she conveys is of not using senses in order

not to know: “[I]f you don’t look, you won’t have to know.” This expression denies the structural

mapping of “seeing” onto “knowing,” but it also implies the necessity to accept Knowing Is

Seeing because of the negative consequences of not accepting this metaphor. For Rand, one is

guilty, as if committing a secular fault, in ignoring reality, which is the source of all knowledge.2

Being Ignorant Is Being Unwilling to See is the opposite metaphor used to describe how some

become ignorant of reality. They do not see reality because they close their eyes to it or choose

to turn their sight away. This action allows them to faultily believe that, if “you don’t know it,

you are free to believe what you wish.” For Rand, this could imply that Deception Is

Purposefully Impeding Vision, which explains the reason to distrust people who act like this

astronaut by impeding reality with faith in something mystical, or removed from reality, thus

deceiving themselves and those who trust them. By using these metaphors in creating the story,

2 Reality, for Objectivists, is absolute and unchanging and, in this case, could be compared to the all-seeing and hence all-knowing God.

11

Rand is trying to show how faith seekers decide to ignore facts and rather choose to rely on what

their emotions tell them about reality. Faith for them is confused with the solid ground that

knowledge should provide. Thus, their rational link to reality is broken.

On this alien world, the sky is real, and the viewer would be guided by interpreting it

rationally. The reality of the sky orients the viewer up, toward rational truth, in contrast to down,

the ambiguous emotions that are instead chosen by the astronaut. This is an instance of

orientational Reason Is Up metaphor. The choice of the astronaut is irrational because the

astronaut wasn’t genuinely concerned with looking up at the higher truth. The fact of being far

from home is dismissed without investigation by the astronaut in favor of believing in being

perhaps not very far. The illusive belief is accepted instead of coming in contact with reality and

finding objective evidence of the senses useful in constructing plans to get back home. This

major choice by the astronaut is attributed to Rand’s enemies - “the mystics of spirit” with the

belief in God, rather than themselves, to explain reality and “the mystics of muscle” with the

belief in unconscious and base matter, causing them to deceive themselves by abandoning the

guidance of reason as applied to reality.3 The only correct choice would be to accept reality as it

is according to the axiom of existence. The either-or crossroads is a common thread through

Rand’s ideology, and it places Aristotelian logic as the best method for people to reason.

Next is another decision--this time it is whether to employ human reason. The exact

words are: “You turn to your instruments: they may be damaged, you don’t know how seriously.

But you stop, struck by a sudden fear: how can you trust these instruments? How can you be sure

3 In a far-reaching interpretation, materialist sciences, the products of “pure” reason, are not as dependable as the nature of reality because they may also be misused for the sake of a false belief. “The mystics of spirit” and “the mystics of muscle” are described in Atlas Shrugged (2009) and in the essay “The Stimulus and the Response” (Rand, 1982, Ch. 13).

12

that they won’t mislead you? How can you know whether they will work in a different world?

You turn away from the instruments” (p. 1). The spaceship instruments are created using

scientific theories and logic, so they symbolize science that lies at the root of technology. The

fear paralyzes the mind of the astronaut. Although Rand perhaps attempts to associate fear with

religious piety, it is secularized by her and made into the fear of the moment, which can be

experienced by anyone. The urgency of the situation is overwhelming, and the astronaut cannot

appropriately react to resolve the situation. The doubt undermines reason and ultimately results

in abandoning science. But, more so, the excerpt shows that science, just like reality, could be

ignored or misconstrued, that it is secondary when it comes to what is fundamental to the person.

Philosophy, for Rand (1982), lies at the root of the sciences--it is the soil of the forest where

individual sciences are trees (p. 2). This natural view of philosophy opposes the unnatural, or

supernatural, view of those who accept fuzzy emotions above reason.

The story ends so:

Now you begin to wonder why you have no desire to do anything. It seems so much safer

just to wait for something to turn up somehow; it is better, you tell yourself, not to rock

the spaceship. Far in the distance, you see some sort of living creatures approaching; you

don’t know whether they are human, but they walk on two feet. They, you decide, will

tell you what to do.

You are never heard from again. (p. 2, original emphasis)

The astronaut decides to rely on arbitrary safety of the moment and not to do anything. The

astronaut stays at the same location, waiting for something beneficial to happen until some living

organisms approach the astronaut. They look like people, but you do not know. Although at this

moment you are supposedly paralyzed with fear and uncertainty, you as the astronaut show trust

in the strange creatures. Rand suggests through the astronaut that the reliance on emotions causes

13

one to become unable to discern enemies from friends. Instead of defending oneself or fighting

the situation in any way, you as the astronaut have lost your life--you were literally killed.

The method of this metaphor employed by Rand is to purge her audience from religious

or secular philosophies she considers evil--philosophies that will get you killed. Although

practicing them may seem innocent enough, the actions grounded in such thinking (or the lack of

any kind) directly lead to and cause the most unfavorable results. After Rand told the story of the

astronaut, which provided some necessary frames of her point of view, she started explaining the

features of philosophy in general. By this time, she showed her audience that the choice of

philosophy is the choice of life or death. It is the choice of utmost importance that, she knew,

convinced her audience to follow her deeper into other visualized abstractions.

The story about the astronaut helps Rand reframe the views of her audience. The surface

frame is the way the story is told and the kinds of words that are chosen, whereas the deep frame

is the long-term, fundamental concepts that drive it. Rand has deeply seated evaluations--

conceptual metaphors--that explain her worldview as depicted in the story. She also makes a

political, metaphorical argument with the story itself. Such arguments can indeed be made (cf.

Fisher, 1984, pp. 290ff.; Lakoff, 2014, p. 158). The story was also told in the form of a parable

but interpreted as an allegory. Teaching moral lessons by telling a parable is in the Christian

tradition, and allegories were used to promote idealism since Plato. But interpreting the story as

an allegory may be inadequate because allegories are too specific. An allegory may be construed

by each person differently. For example, Leonard Peikoff (2013), in his analysis of “Philosophy:

Who Needs It,” interpreted the story and analyzed the speech without relying on metaphors (pp.

42-55).

14

Motivation plays a key role in Peikoff’s analysis since he thinks that Rand used

motivation successfully throughout the speech. She was thinking about the intellectual needs of

her audience and what was on their minds. She prepared the beginning of the speech as if the

audience was following a competing philosophy, namely, skepticism. The title challenges and

entices the audience, and the allegorical story tries to attract more of their attention in order to

start bringing them into Rand’s worldview. Peikoff argues that the reason Rand picked the

astronaut is that this kind of character is more concrete for the West Point students to grasp. An

astronaut is seemingly far removed from the field of philosophy; he or she is a heroic depiction

of a common person, who prefers to work physically as well as mentally. People are like

astronauts, but sometimes they act in a wrong way and thus do not survive.

Concerning delimitation, Peikoff says that Rand had to limit her speech in order to avoid

too many questions in the minds of her audience. She had to allude to the basic statements about

her philosophy without delving too deep into her ideas and without being too explicit in

criticizing the other side. Without referencing metaphors, Peikoff claims that the reason Rand did

not mention that “philosophy is a precondition of human happiness” (p. 42) is that the audience

may not have been prepared to accept this from the beginning of the speech.4 But by the end of

the speech, such shadow constructions could come to fruition. Rand could only say some things

implicitly throughout her speech, but then she could have mentioned them directly at the end,

such as that “[y]ou will be miserable without [philosophy]” (p. 47). However, these constructions

4 Peikoff was present at the time the speech was given, and he says that the audience was “settled down from the beginning” (p. 43). The use of the personal pronoun “you” is also found salient and effective by Peikoff. This address thus seemed more personal, casual, and easier to follow. Rand also anticipated the audience’s questions and answered them before they were asked.

15

are only implied and not expressly included in the essay. What helps the audience grasp these

ideas, I contend, are the conceptual metaphors underpinning some of her claims.

Continuing, Peikoff maintains: “The astronaut does a bad thing in each of these areas--he

is afraid to look, he does not trust his instruments, and he sits there paralyzed while those

creatures are coming--and the whole thing is presented in a plausible way” (p. 52). Peikoff

argues that all the actions based on religion or emotions are plausible as actions based on fear.

However, there can be derived a fundamental conceptual meaning of the story that is more

general. The generalized meaning of this story has to do with the survival of the person. The

survival depends on making the choice to stay alive, not necessarily physically fighting, but to

get oneself involved in a philosophical battle by accepting and faithfully following the true

philosophy while opposing subjective and mystic influences, whether internal or external.

Rational philosophy supposedly cannot depend on metaphors or emotions. This is how

Peikoff (1974) explains metaphors: “A metaphorical usage represents a loose, extended use of a

concept on the basis of some similarities, which it has in the original use, but it is not, insofar as

it’s a metaphor, in itself a literal concept, nor is it therefore to be given a formal definition in that

usage” (e.g., revolution as sexual/industrial) (Lec. 8). Additionally, Rand (2001) mentions the

function of metaphors briefly, which is, again, only to make linguistic, surface comparisons:

The principle is that a metaphor isolates the particular attribute of a given sensory image

in order to make the reader fully aware of it. “The snow was white” and “The sugar was

white” are merely abstractions. But if you say, “The snow was white as sugar,” you make

the reader hold in his mind, for a split second, the two concrete images. He has an image

of sugar and one of snow, and he sees what they have in common. It is like reconstructing

the process of concept-formation in his mind—of observing what attributes two concretes

have in common. (p. 113)

16

This is an Aristotelian view that is based on inherent similarities. It is also the view of

Objectivism on metaphors, but it does not reflect the possible depths of conceiving

metaphorically. As for Aristotle, reason for Rand and Peikoff is literal, logical, and directly

derived from environment, and thus there can be no mental constructs that surpass strict, non-

contradictory logic. Only reality is more fundamental than such pure reason. However, we will

see that bridging perceptions and conceptions can indeed involve conceptual metaphors, even in

Objectivism.

The philosophy of Objectivism bases capitalism (political philosophy) on egoism (ethics)

that in turn is based on reason (epistemology) and lastly on existence (metaphysics). Reason is

the “basic means of survival,” man’s “fundamental attribute,” and “necessity of human life”

(Rand, 1982, pp. viiff.). Surviving in a hostile world necessarily entails a battle for one’s life,

particularly a philosophical battle. “Ethics, or morality, defines a code of values to guide man’s

choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the course of his life” (Rand, 1982,

p. 4, my emphases). In Objectivism, while comparing the subconscious to a computer (p. 7), to

be moral, a human being must focus and maintain focus in order to survive and succeed in life.

In Objectivist philosophy, “The essence of a volitional consciousness is the fact that its operation

always demands the same fundamental effort of initiation and then of maintenance across time”

(Peikoff, 1991, p. 59, my emphases). This effort is required by Rand and her followers for

competence in living.

17

1. Mind Is Computer Metaphor

Throughout her speech, Rand tried to get her audience to identify the qualities that align

with her worldview. One of these qualities is never straying from one’s set path. What helped her

maintain this conceptual stance was the way she conceived a Mind as Computer metaphor. In the

following passage, Rand (1982) showcases that the element the astronaut missed was the reason

he did not survive. The passage starts with a simile:

Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—

and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious

mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is

programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not

know you have accepted. (p. 7)

Then the simile strengthens into the metaphor:

But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the

form of emotions—which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you,

calculated according to your values. If you programmed your computer by conscious

thinking, you know the nature of your values and emotions. If you didn’t, you don’t. . . .

(p. 7, original emphasis)

Rand is thus using Mind Is Computer metaphor.5 Although she was not the first to use

this metaphor, she was probably one of the first to use it in persuading the military to identify

with her. Burke (1969) calls an instance of identification "the translation of one's wishes into

terms of an audience's opinions" (p. 57). We identify based on our motives and compose

consubstantiality with identifications. Before the modern computer era, this was a fairly novel

metaphor that could have been popular among the military personnel. Some of the inferences of

this metaphor can be seen in its analysis by Gigerenzer and Goldstein (1996): "One of the major

concepts in computer programming that made its way into the new models of the mind is the

5 Cf. Mind Is a Machine metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999, p. 455).

18

decomposition of complexity into simpler units, such as the decomposition of a program into a

hierarchy of simpler subroutines or into a set of production rules" (p. 138). In Objectivism,

philosophy is regarded as "hierarchical; it’s a whole structure, with one idea resting on another

and another, and so on" (Peikoff, 2012b, p. 35). This could be considered Rand's "hierarchic

motive" in rhetorical identification.

Just as Mind as Computer metaphor started with human actors performing specific

functions within a hierarchical, communal structure, industrialization quickened the expanding

boundaries of human effort into a global context. This was also known as the Computer as a

Factory of Workers conception in the 19th century (Gigerenzer & Goldstein 1996, p. 133ff.).

From Rand’s point of view, the new world had to be free yet bound by logic inherent in the mind

functioning as a fulcrum for the victory of capitalism over the egalitarian and meaningless (i.e.,

illogical) perversions of collectivists' communal efforts. Identifying mind as a rational actor

fighting victoriously against the minds enslaved by emotions was a rhetorical technique Rand

used to convince her audience in each of their personal battles.

In the following discussion on knowing what ideas are used, Rand (1982) says: “The

ultimate programmer of his [man’s] subconscious is philosophy—the science which, according

to the emotionalists, is impotent to affect or penetrate the murky mysteries of their feelings” (p.

7, original italics, my underline). To penetrate something unknown also means “to reach” or “to

understand.” Philosophy makes everything clear and helps us see unless it is resisted. It may also

be resisted in understanding the opposing side. Philosophy as a programmer moves one’s mind

in particular directions and is also moved by one’s mind. Related to this line is Thinking Is

Perceiving metaphor, which entails Being Ignorant Is Being Unable to See and Deception Is

19

Purposefully Impeding Vision (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999, Ch. 12). Seeing murky mysteries of

skeptic and similar “evil” philosophies is using the submetaphors of Knowing Is Seeing: Idea Is

Object Seen, Knowing an Idea Is Seeing an Object Clearly, Person Who Knows Is Person Who

Sees, “Light” of Reason Is Light, and others (Ch. 19). Rand also uses the metaphor that Mind Is

Computer to say that, if making choices only based on emotions, one would not survive in the

hostile world. But by programming one’s thinking to practice the correct principles, one

programs emotions and survives.

Along with Mind as Computer, Thinking Is Mathematical Calculation (with its other

submetaphors) is also relevant here. Rand and Peikoff’s (1990) epistemology uses conceptual

units that are alike to mathematical ones and are based on perceived objects. Comparing

conception to computation, Rand wrote: “The process of concept-formation is, in large part, a

mathematical process” (Rand & Peikoff, 1990, p. 14). This is required to be most proficient in

philosophy. What the military uses for defense is similar to defending one’s philosophy. One

needs technologies that work without interruptions and can always be relied on. Mathematics in

programming languages is a method that helps achieve one’s purposes in war, be logically

intransigent and objective in set goals. The military uses and generates such technologies that

enable it to defeat enemies.

At the human core of philosophy is reason and the compatible Thinking Is Object

Construction metaphor. The opposite of reason is mystic emotions and thus false thinking that

makes the metaphor False Thinking Is Object Destruction. Life as a Battle serves as an

intermediary between Thinking metaphors and Philosophy as War. Overall, philosophy “deals

with the most crucial, the life-or-death issues of man’s existence” (Rand, 1982, p. 9, my

20

emphasis). True philosophy proclaims reason, which is “the tool of survival” (pp. 39ff., 88).

Here, reason is additionally viewed to imply Thought as Language--a conceptual “tool of

protection and survival,” i.e., “language” (p. 106). The axioms of Objectivism are also expressed

linguistically.6 A computer is a rational tool of constructing and maintaining the right “code” in

life. A computer uses binary logic, just as the mind is supposed to think. A computer is a clean

device and is not associated with animalistic or uncontrollable tendencies. Only intelligent

humans are able to use it.

Similarly, reason is an important tool that can be relied upon and trusted. Reason not only

can help structure and construct survival, but it can also help in successfully fighting off an

enemy, who is considered to be destructive, amoral, and irrational. The enemy uses weapons to

destroy reason, and Objectivism uses weapons in order to protect reason and destroy the

conflicting emotions and the emotionalists. With reason on one’s side, one can become sure that

victory is not far. Reason is a trusty tool that boosts or programs moral strength, while unreason,

the savage and “bloody” enemy, cannot be trusted. When the deep conceptual frame of Knowing

Is Seeing/Seeing Is Touching (e.g., “print-outs”) is congruent with Morality Is Strength, absolute

defense is thus constructed, and the enemy cannot win.

And, as mind is thought to be strictly computational, Rand and Branden (1964) view

perfect government, consisting of military, police, and courts, as also to be an “impersonal robot,

with the laws as its only motive power” (p. 104). Only this type of government can protect the

rights of its subjects. And while each mind is autonomous, independent, and individualistic, it

ought to follow the ultimate personal authority, the trinity of Objectivist axioms based on

6 Cf. this linguistic rationalization: "[T]here is something I am aware of. There is—existence; something—identity; I am aware of—consciousness" (Peikoff, 1991, p. 7).

21

objective reality and the three principles (i.e., Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem). This is not Kantian,

collectivist Universal Reason, but Reason that is selfish and in contact with reality. However,

there are similarities in these concepts of Reason. Lakoff and Johnson (1999) discuss metaphors

for mind that they call faculty psychology or the Society of Mind:

Since society is structured hierarchically with an executive giving orders, so too the mind

has a hierarchical structure and an executive in control. Just as a society has unruly and

uncontrollable individuals, so there are specific isolatable faculties of the mind that can

be unruly and uncontrollable. Just as a well-ordered society should not be governed by

people out of control, so a properly functioning mind should be governed in a calm,

rational, methodical manner. (p. 345)

What needs to be understood is that Objectivists are not against emotions per se; they are only

against emotions that are without reason. Once emotions are subdued and disciplined by being

determined, or “programmed,” by reason, the emotions can help achieve the same goals that they

share with reason. Moreover, these passions can amplify the will to use reason and help more

vigorously fight against the enemies of reason. The passion for one’s Mind as Computer

transforms into qualities necessary for battle. Rand teaches battle-readiness and prepares the

audience for war.

Rand is teaching her ideology rhetorically, although she uses Aristotelian logic at the core

of her argument. Her metaphysics has to be taken as a rhetorical (and already ultimate) rather

than a dialectical, or hierarchical, truth. She uses hierarchy of mind to dominate rather than

transcend reality. She does not accept Platonic ideal forms or Aristotelian intrinsic essences.

Instead, she depends on the primacy of existence as completely secular in contrast to systems

based on the primacy of consciousness. This move helped Rand in her rhetoric. The truth is

absolute and thus requires absolute adherence. The teaching of truth means the universal

audience must accept the truth completely rather than reach for its partial attainment.

22

Kenneth Burke (1969) conceived of identification to be within a group of associates or

extending to those who are supposed to be persuaded, and “consubstantiality” is the substance of

what’s being individually shared. Rand identifies some features that she shares with the military

tradition of West Point. Burkean identification with an audience is done to persuade them to join

in one’s cause or, in our case, philosophy. Rand’s identification of what’s necessary for her Mind

as Computer metaphor to work bridges her view with her audience’s by the means of her

compliments and praise.

In her speech, Rand (1982) compliments cadets for their virtues. She admires “the

posture of West Point graduates, a posture that projects man in proud, disciplined control of his

body” (p. 10). Rand praises virtues that the cadets have: “earnestness--dedication--a sense of

honor” (p. 12), to show that they are on her side. Rand shows her appreciation by promoting the

“glorious” virtues that the West Point establishment upheld throughout the centuries of its

existence. She points out that the cadets are virtuous when they defend their country selfishly and

not from selfless duty. And the tradition was of the former quality rather than the latter. To bring

the audience to her side, Rand praises the qualities of her audience that specifically conflict with

the selfless duty-based ethics of her opponents. She says: “I will not insult you by saying that

you are dedicated to selfless service” (p. 12).7 Being selfless is deemed immoral by Rand and

thus she attributes selfishness to her audience while counterposing it to the immorality of

selflessness. At the end of her speech, Rand thanks them for being as she described them. She

7 Rand chooses the Ciceronian wording used in Against Verres, I: “It is true that with you on this bench, gentlemen, with Manius Acilius Glabrio as your president, I do not understand what Verres can hope to achieve” (III, 7). In this part of his speech, Cicero used to “assassinate” the character of the person he was attacking, namely that of rich Verres. He did it by praising the virtues of his audience, implying their characters to be greater than the defendant’s and playing off their vanity against clear judgments.

23

chose a positive and powerful closure to her memorable speech, but it needs to be remembered

that she started with negative illustrations of her audience, the illustrations she used to attack the

philosophy she perceived them to have. Now she was convinced that she gave all the necessary

reasons to persuade her audience, and she thought they identified with her by accepting her

definition of philosophy. She left as a strict yet friendly figure admonishing the non-Objectivist

cadets to follow the cause she shared with them.

The appeal to the dominance of mind does not necessarily lead to the rational perception

or evaluation that Objectivists value. This may be one of the reasons many ignore this

philosophy. Objectivism’s first principle is indeed Reason, and the frequent mention of the

words “reason,” “mind,” “rational,” “objective,” etc., used in Objectivist works and among

Objectivists (e.g., on their online forums) provides evidence for the Objectivist language and

rhetoric of reason. Reasonable rhetoric is then not only about thinking independently from

others, but it is also about trying to think like others in order to persuade them to fit into the

community of like-minded individuals. Identifying Mind as Computer works as a rational means

of persuasion. And persuasion by means of framing has been shown by Lakoff to be mostly

unconscious and unanalyzed. Thus, even for Objectivists, in-group thinking becomes common or

“consubstantial.” By sharing the conceptual metaphors inherent in their worldview, they would

find “objective” means that help unite their axioms with the minds of their audiences.

Rand wanted to persuade her audience to join her in fighting the irrational enemies of

capitalism, and so she provided a moral system that could correctly program their minds and

drive them to victory, although the importance she gave to reason and morality was all too

similar to the collectivists’, even if more virtue-based than deontological. Lakoff and Johnson’s

24

(1999) analysis of Kant’s moral theory (pp. 348-51) is in some respects similar to Rand’s own

moral theory, as both claim to be based on reason, even if that reason is conceived differently.

Kenneth Burke’s (1941) astute description of Hitler in “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s ‘Battle’”

shows some similarities in strategy with Rand. A related passage of his essay is the following:

“[I]f one can hand over his infirmities to a vessel, or ‘cause,’ outside the self, one can battle an

external enemy instead of battling an enemy within” (p. 243). This can be applied to the current

philosophical paradigm, when the enemy is displaced by those who believe in God, race, or

society, and the goal becomes laissez-faire free-market capitalism. In Hitler’s own words: the

military’s defeat was the “consequence of moral poisoning, visible to all, the consequence of a

decrease in the instinct of self-preservation” (qtd. in Burke, 1941, p. 244). This militaristic moral

philosophy was shared among Rand and her enemies. But Rand also used it to gain identification

of her audience of military cadets.

Rand’s enemies were always external. Killing the external enemy in battle is a means of

transforming one’s inner motives, which Rand identifies through her metaphors. Rand’s first act

was to get the audience to identify with the mistaken astronaut in order for her to later show the

nature of the enemy. Then, in order for the audience to rationally choose to identify with the

victor, Rand expressed the consubstantial qualities that she and her audience shared, and this

derived from the fact that she and her audience were really fighting the same enemy. One

commonality with the audience was the use of reason in bridging the gap between the subject

and the objective reality. This concept of reason is defined by Rand as (epistemological)

identification, and this epistemological process also served as the means for others to identify

with and follow her philosophy. This reason is objective, and moreover, classically logical. And

25

in addition to valuing the role of consciousness in external reality, she compared mind to a

computer.

Rooted in division, Rand's rhetoric strived for an understanding independently attained

by each person in her audience. This ultimate state, based on the commonality of reason, was

perceived to be without conflict. The utopia became the goal for all practical people of reason.

Rand proclaimed the essence of man to be his mind. But rather than “eulogize” reason, Rand first

“dyslogized” anti-reason. She provided a way for her audience to “transcend” their meaningless

struggles by identifying with her group. And the audience that accepts her philosophy hears the

promise of “transcendence” and joins in her vision of living toward the perfect political state.

She had to be adamant about her view being absolute in truth and objectivity and had to be

disciplined by programming herself logically. After all, “[t]he ultimate programmer of [man’s]

subconscious is philosophy” (Rand, 1982, p. 7, original emphasis).

She started with divisiveness and individual autonomy, but by criticizing the opposition

and thus purging the audience as if by Aristotelian “catharsis,” she was able to implicitly stress

her own position and have her audience identify with it in their own minds, despite her position’s

controversial nature. She provided her analysis of the global political climate as the context and

field of philosophical activity. The negative details that she brought to the attention of her

audience quickly dissipated to give way to her own philosophy in the minds of her audience. She

did not concentrate on her philosophy, but it happened naturally that her manner of attack

motivated the audience to independently derive her rationale and decide for themselves whether

hers was a better position in contrast to the one she was criticizing. But, of course, the rhetoric

26

was structured to leave them no better choice and thus impel them to accept her philosophy

completely.

Because she starts with individualistic and objective division of matter and subjects into

opposing entities, her ultimate goal has to be a war. Rather than viewing war as divisive and evil,

Rand identifies with war against evil, a righteous war that was the quintessence of her

philosophy. Yet, this type of war becomes the struggle shared by all, regardless of inclinations or

duty. But the mind, the computer made for war, and the philosophy, the programmer of war,

have to defeat those who are fighting against objective meaning. And under the guidance of the

absolutely logical philosophy, the attractive outcome was a calculable act impossible to dismiss--

the victory for the philosophy of Objectivism.

2. Life Is a Battle Metaphor

Rand often wrote of “fighting,” “struggling,” and “battling” for the freedom and

goodness in life, whether through the strike of major industrialists in Atlas Shrugged or the

demolition of a building in The Fountainhead. However, her audience at West Point was not

necessarily like-minded, so she began her speech concentrating on how non-Objectivists fight for

their lives. She carefully prepared the grounds for acceptance before leaping to her final

conclusions. In an essay titled “Philosophical Detection” (Rand, 1982, Ch. 2), she describes

people who make mistakes similar to the astronaut:

Most men can give themselves only some primitively superficial answers—and they

spend their lives struggling with incomprehensible inner conflicts, alternately repressing

their emotions and indulging in emotional fits, regretting it, losing control again,

rebelling against the mystery of their inner chaos, trying to unravel it, giving up, deciding

to feel nothing—and feeling the growing pressure of fear, guilt, self-doubt, which makes

the answers progressively harder to find. (p. 21)

27

She contrasts her own aggressive stance with the numb resistance to conflict that stems

from repressing rather than resolving contradictory emotions. This way she identifies what she

hates and what could potentially belong to her audience. One can infer that people who “spend

their lives struggling” can only win the battle by internalizing the Objectivist ethics and by

becoming masters of their own lives. Thus, the conceptual metaphor Life Is a Battle is also

implied in Rand’s speech at West Point. She would teach the cadets her ethics by using this

metaphor and having them identify with the need to fight their common enemies. This metaphor

has, with entailed structural and/or ontological mappings, various inferences (Fuhrmann, 2013),

such as: life is lived individually by fighting or struggling for survival; a hostile environment

requires life to be fought courageously; an honest life is moral and necessary for an individual’s

survival; principled life is led in protection of its ideals; the individual is strengthened by life’s

experience in order to continue fighting; one can either be active or give up life; planning life

strategically for the long term is necessary to survive; using the mind and being rational is an

indispensable tool for survival; life can lead to either success or failure, win or lose; death is the

end that concludes life; life can be peaceful or it can be difficult and unfair; and throwing life

away is a sign of wasting strategic resources.

Conceiving of Life as a Battle reflects how Rand thought and acted. Although the

specific constructions of fighting are not always explicitly stated, Rand did not convey a very

peaceful personality. She led a life filled with arguments, was sometimes seen as a warrior, if not

a battlemaster, and often showed her radical, rebellious nature. While sometimes being very

aggressive with her own followers, Rand also impressed others with her battle-hardiness in

arguments, even being visualized by her opponents at the scene of battle, such as: “Many are the

28

people who laughed at my description of [Rand’s] dialectical invincibility, only later to try their

hands and join me among the corpses on the Randian battlefield” (qtd. in Burns, 2009, pp.

149ff.). Her always-winning argumentation developed from a very young age and from her love

of arguments (Burns, 2009, pp. 13, 21). Even while she used some language of battle, she used

identification with battle-worthy qualities to have her audience participate in her worldview.

Although life means also survival, survival does not necessarily mean life, since one can

live without even thinking about survival. Thinking about survival, though, is the essence of

Objectivist reasoning and thus equates survival with living philosophically. Introducing

Philosophy: Who Needs It, Peikoff writes that “[r]eason, according to Objectivism, . . . [is the]

basic means of survival . . . [and requires] a necessity of human life” (Rand, 1982, p. vii).

Objectivists promote their own survival by sharing their worldview and convictions. Their minds

are independent, but their knowledge can persuade and thus “change” others like “changing”

nature (p. 39). In her speech, Rand expressed the need for persuasion because of the urgency she

felt her entire life, the urgency of which she warned her audience when she said that there is a

philosophical “battle for man’s mind” and therefore for his life (p. 9). For this reason,

Objectivists must be fighting to promote not only their philosophy but also their way of life.

“Survival is life” is related to the conceptual metaphors in the Lakovian sense and involves other

conceptual metaphors (such as Argument Is War) in building the Objectivist worldview as well

as helping reframe the worldviews of others. An important implication of this is the Objectivist

political position and how it affects contemporary right-wing politicians in thinking about and

defending capitalism and reinforcing their own non-Objectivist worldviews.

29

An astronaut is also one of those figures who needs to fight for his or her life in order to

survive. If an astronaut relies on mere hope or faith, he or she will probably not survive. The

astronaut trusted the alien place instead of making effort to survive. Ayn Rand (1982) believes

that acting like the astronaut in the story is “the way most men live their lives” (p. 2). She

implies, however, that, whether or not they survive based on their philosophical choices, all

people are like astronauts. Individuals live in a hostile environment, and the perception of an

environment and others in it as hostile reinforces individualistic traits. You might have heard

from rebellious teenagers, when they speak against admonishments of their parents, something

along the lines of: “Leave me alone! I just want to live my life!” To live or wanting or trying to

live is usually stressed, but, importantly, “living” correlates to the self-interested “I” who says so.

And when in a truly dangerous situation, an individual who values his or her life will say: “I will

fight for my life!” And a similar line that Rand uses to promote her vision of capitalism--the

laissez-faire (i.e., hands-off) free-market capitalism--is: “Give me liberty or give me death”

(Rand, “Essentials”). A battle is resolved when a soldier receives either liberty or death. And in

Rand’s sense, individualists must fight to make capitalism a reality.

This battle aggressiveness, however, is only in self-defense or in defense of one’s

independent way of life. Rand opposed physical force with force only if it was initiated against

her life. Rand had been a great debater, and so the battle for life is also conceptual and

philosophical. She preferred to see herself surrounded by enemies who were destined to fail

because of their philosophical choices, and this difficult stance only strengthened Rand’s life in

battle. Acting on the principles of one’s true philosophy is “not easy,” as she said (Rand, 1982, p.

6). Yet, she also preferred to see the enemy’s side as difficult because false. Even the rational

30

failures of the astronaut become a struggle. Rand explains how this character relates to a

common person: “Most men spend their days struggling to evade three questions, the answers to

which underlie man’s every thought, feeling and action, whether he is consciously aware of it or

not: Where am I? How do I know it? What should I do?” (p. 2, my emphases). These questions

span the most important parts of Rand’s philosophy and philosophy in general. They correlate

with reality (existence), reason (relationship to existence), and life (a code of conduct and

values). The third is studied by the field of ethics, which “may be regarded as [philosophy’s]

technology” (p. 3, my emphasis). Using such “technology,” one can visualize the course of the

moral battle. Then, ethics, like a computer, “defines a code of values to guide man’s choices and

actions--the choices and actions that determine the course of his life” (p. 3, my emphases). This

definition is grounded in the common mental imagery of men in battle--as soldiers--who have

strength to follow such codes that help guide them through the courses of their battles.

However, most people, even though they understand the questions, provide an

unacceptable answer, as Rand portrayed it: “Where am I? Say, in New York City. How do I

know it? It’s self-evident. What should I do? Here, they are not too sure—but the usual answer

is: whatever everybody does. The only trouble seems to be that they are not very active, not very

confident, not very happy—and they experience, at times, a causeless fear and an undefined

guilt, which they cannot explain or get rid of ” (p. 2, my emphases). The answer to the question

about life is without confidence. These men say that they imitate others; they do whatever

everyone else does. They are not very active or happy. These people are generally called by

Rand “whim-worshippers,” for they do not favor reason, and hence their struggle is not for

victory. Their struggle is a losing battle. And, besides, they are not properly “equipped.” Since

31

Rand portrayed the astronaut, a common person, as a failure in battle, she meant to show that

resisting true philosophy is similarly an ultimate failure--it leads to the loss of one’s life. Such

struggles conflict with Rand’s cause. Emotions against reason are the enemy and should be

gotten rid of. The emotional struggle against reason leads to war with reason. But reason is the

right side to be on. Reason provides certitude based on the absolute nature of existence, and

without certainty--you are “doomed to perpetual doubt,” to “failure and disaster” (p. 3ff., my

emphases) in the hands of the enemy. Rand pitches these ideas to her audience, knowing that

they would identify with them, in order to attack and get rid of these ideas, thus preparing the

audience to accept her philosophy. The proper code will be programmed by the proper

philosophy for the success in battle.

Consequent to Rand’s reasoning, creatures with unknown morals must be distrusted,

especially in unclear situations, such as an alien planet or New York City during the Cold War.

The aliens in the astronaut story may as well symbolize the enemies who try to morally weaken

you by dismantling your code of values. But rather than fearing the enemies, you must trust

reason and be independent of others, i.e., be self-reliant and not rely on others’ help. In

Objectivism, society is not more important or fundamental than the individuals who compose it.

In fact, society may be viewed as an alien place where others are being immoral and spread bad

influences. Another analogy used in Objectivism to illustrate the nature of society is that “the

independent man is as alone in society as on a desert island” (Peikoff, 1991, p. 381, cf. pp. 202,

252). A society is compared to a desert island in order to promote the idea of self-made people

and competitiveness. One needs to survive one’s life, i.e., one’s battle, in order to continue

waging a total war.

32

3. Philosophy Is War Metaphor

The conceptual metaphor Philosophy Is War is a novel configuration of the well-known

Argument Is War or Argument Is Struggle metaphors. It also has structural and ontological

entailments in addition to those of its closely related complementary metaphor Life Is a Battle

and the hierarchical configuration provided by Mind Is Computer metaphor. Rand’s expressive

words in an earlier essay, “What Can One Do?” (1972), remind one of the conceptual frame that

she held so deeply: “[A] philosophical battle is a nuclear war” (1982, p. 246). Based on our

knowledge of war, we can make the following inferences about philosophy: some philosophy is

hierarchical and there are hierarchies made of kings and their followers; philosophers can be

viewed metonymically as philosophies (metonymy Subject for Person); philosophers promulgate

or propagandize their causes and ideas; philosophy influences cultures and societies; philosophy

can spread corrupting influences (e.g., corrupting youth); and the success of philosophy entails

great rewards and domineering power over people’s minds (e.g., philosophy can conquer one’s

mind). When speaking about minds engaged in conflict, metonymy Mind for Person may be

used, e.g., “he was a great mind.”

As we have already seen, a metaphor closely related to Mind Is Computer is the Ideas

Are Objects metaphor, which maps physical properties of objects onto ideas. For example, in

philosophical war, there are some ideas that you may “feel compelled to use” or that can

represent “a grab-bag of notions snatched at random” or that “you would drop like a hot potato if

you knew” (Rand, 1982, p. 5ff., my emphases). It is important what ideas or principles one

upholds because they “may clash” (p. 6, my emphasis). Thus opposing ethics provide the means

and serve as weapons of conflict. This is where the “battle” of philosophy emerges. Philosophy

33

is fought conceptually by using appropriate tools in structuring its ideas and attacking others with

criticisms in order to “dismantle” them, as we will see later. A philosophy can be sharp, and such

philosophies are dangerous.

Rand stood in front of many cadets of West Point as a general teaching them important

strategies to use in succeeding in all their battles. She showed that the evil influences of altruistic

philosophers, especially Hegel and Kant, permeate much of our language and thoughts (Rand,

1982, p. 15ff.), and they have to be resisted and fought against at all costs. But how could one

resist or fight while not knowing one’s own philosophy or not being sure of one’s truth? A

common man “does not know whether its programming is true or false, right or wrong, whether

it’s set to lead him to success or destruction, whether it serves his goals or those of some evil,

unknowable power. He is blind on two fronts” (p. 7, my emphases). That is why he needs

philosophy. Those who choose to depend on emotions rather than on rational “programming” do

not know whether their set paths will lead them to “success or destruction,” and thus they are

“blind on two fronts.” Those who do not want to resolve their situation and are not interested in

philosophy are “most helplessly in [philosophy’s] power” (p. 8). Like the astronaut in the story,

they cannot escape it but have to choose sides if they want to survive. But they have to be

careful, since philosophers influence culture and the world around them. Thus, philosophies can

be superior or inferior just as the sides of conflict; many lives and even generations can be given

for the cause of some philosophy; philosophy uses ideas and conceptual techniques as tools or

weapons to attain its goals and to clearly see the goals of its enemies; philosophy can be wasteful

or righteous, significant or meaningless, clear or murky; the end of a philosophical argument

entails a loss of one side and a win of the other; and philosophy has areas or territories of interest

34

that it covers. Rand portrays this imagery of war with urgency and requires for self-protection the

“defense of truth, justice, freedom” against the corrupting influences involved in the “battle of

philosophers [--] a battle for man’s mind” (p. 9, my emphases). One has to be perfectly exact in

programming one’s strategic actions and being as objective as a computer, and Rand totally

accepts that she is in the role of such domineering but protective power, the power being derived

from rational truth and objectivity.

At the root of philosophies lie issues that deal with man’s mind, and “some theories

struggle to clarify and others struggle to obfuscate, to corrupt” (Rand, 1982, p. 9, my emphases).

But Rand admonishes the cadets to “train” and “discipline” their “intellectual posture” of

philosophy (p. 10, original emphasis), as if philosophy was an entity. There is also an

orientational aspect to this metaphor: philosophy guided by reason, which is seated in our brain,

is positioned higher than the rest of the body, and upright posture is the consequence of higher

reason and philosophical training. If not prepared, an enemy can corrupt reason and thus lower

morality as well as weaken the person physically, i.e., lowering posture.

While teaching them her ethics for proper conduct, Rand advises against surrendering

their “moral autonomy to others” (p. 8, original emphasis). They should not give away what

rightly belongs to them. They should defend it even to the extent of giving up their lives, if not

able to live freely. They should engage in war with their philosophical enemies, and they should

learn the enemies’ enslaving arguments, which are “basic arguments [,] and be able to blast

them” (p. 10, my emphasis). And all this Rand says in her speech to further the cause of her

philosophy.

35

Rand’s closest follower, even while she was alive, was not afraid to use the word

“propaganda” in relation to spreading the messages of Objectivism: “I am an Objectivist

propagandist. I go out of my way to spread and push Objectivist ideas publicly for the sake of

remaking the country according to the way Objectivism holds it should be” (Peikoff, 1974,

Lec.8). And neither did Rand have any qualms about such conduct. To understand this further,

we need to look at the context when her speech was given. After the Watergate scandal, Richard

Nixon was still in office for about five more months, and there was still lingering in the

background the exigency of the Cold War. Compromise, or sharing, is attacked by Rand (1982)

and assigned to Nixon in her speech, displaying the pervasiveness of philosophies she opposes

(p. 5).

Rand’s successful positioning of counter-socialistic ideas in America and fear rhetoric

against socialism go hand in hand. Bitzer (1968) showed that rhetorical situation is fundamental

to rhetoric, and the rhetorical situation at the time was the threat of communism. Rand correctly

evaluated the exigency of the situation, selected the audience (the West Point cadets), and her

constraint was her philosophy, to which she appealed with rational emotions. Her reasoning was

two-valued and dichotomized. On the one side was the enemy, on the other, the cadets who are

supposed to act and make the appropriate decisions to defeat the enemy. The real situation is

reflected in the fictional situation of the astronaut on an alien planet, which is her rhetorical

response. She also used the exigency of potential invasion of the United States by the USSR in

critiquing the defense of capitalism by conservatives:

In recent years, the “conservatives” have gradually come to a dim realization of the

weakness in their position, of the philosophical flaw that had to be corrected [,] . . .

arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be

designated as: the argument from faith [.] . . .

36

Sensing their need of a moral base, many “conservatives” decided to choose religion

as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in

God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States:

in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into

political issues.

Intellectually, to rest one’s case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side

of one’s enemies. (Rand et al., 1966, pp. 197ff., original emphases)

Rand points out that a weakness of conservatives is that they do not have true philosophy

to strengthen their cases and help them better fight the enemy. In fact, to her, conservatives do

not understand the nature of capitalism. But they are not yet lost, since they have realized, at

least dimly, that they have been blind to reason. Rand is further trying to convince conservatives,

by challenging the foundation of their morality, to accept reason over faith. In the following she

once again stresses the exigency of the international situation and criticizes those who have faith

instead of reason, even portrays them as contradictory and anti-American, and she repeats her

appeal:

The “conservatives’ ” claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational

arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice,

property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only

on faith--that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior

to reason.

. . . While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science,

the “conservatives” concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the

supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism. (Rand et al.,

1966, p. 198, original emphasis)

While she was highly critical of religious conservatives, she did try to persuade them to her side

because they all had the same goals--to defend capitalism. What she had to do was to bring the

conservatives to this natural world, back to reality; she had to take them away from the

supernatural and mystical; she had to identify them with capitalist reality, capitalism in the name

of reason, not faith. She claimed that the main difference between her and these conservatives

37

was that she used aggressive, rational philosophy to defend capitalism instead of a mystic

philosophy, which is missing rational epistemology and relationship to reality. Thus, she

attacked conservatives’ ethics. To repeal Rand’s challenge, the conservatives had to be rebranded

and changed from those who were immoral because of weakness from faith to those who chose

the guidance of reason to defend capitalism, as taught by Objectivists.

To attain some political representation in our century, Objectivists attempt to influence

and teach movement conservatives to defend and advance capitalism. Organized by the

Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Ayn Rand Center, a four-hour event called “Intellectual

Ammunition Strategy Session” was held in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2009 (CEI/ARC,

2009). Such “ammunition” prerogatives were common to Objectivists, since there was an

“Intellectual Ammunition Department” column in The Objectivist Newsletter. But it was the first

time that this kind of informational event was created for non-Objectivists. This was due to the

election of President Barack Obama, who is considered by Objectivists and movement

conservatives to be a socialist and thus a common enemy. They needed to let “the Obama

administration hear [their] voices” and “[t]o make the tea party movement an effective weapon in

the war of ideas for individual liberty” (“CEI/ARC,” 2009, my emphases). The threat of

socialism rising in America and the exigency to fight it by using any available means moved the

conservatives to use the Objectivist conception of reason. Although Rand started as a militant

atheist, over time she became considerate of similarly minded, idealistic theists when defending

capitalism. With theists on their side, Objectivists could inspire others to use reason selfishly and

thus motivate them to become atheists in the long run. This tactic would be enough to reinforce

Objectivist ranks in order to accomplish the shared goal, the target of their mission. Even in the

38

past, Rand supported Republicans Wendell Willkie and Barry Goldwater as long as they stayed

far on the right without compromising with the left.

To be a good fighter, one should be intransigent and never compromise one’s principles

with the enemy. A compromise is a slippery slope that can only lead to lowering of morale,

weakness, and the enemies’ victory. Rational moral principles give one moral strength and

conviction. Such principles are inevitable if you accept Reason. “You have no choice about the

necessity to integrate your observations . . . into principles. . . . [Y]ou have no choice about the

fact that you need a philosophy” (Rand, 1982, p. 6). To survive is a need, not a choice. Rand

calls “chronic terror” the inability “to grasp reality” or “own motives” (p. 7). She indicates that

Immanuel Kant influences “the destruction of man’s mind” (p. 8, my emphasis). Immanuel Kant,

an Enlightenment thinker, was surely Rand’s archenemy, and his wide influence helped

strengthen her stance. Alongside Kant, she positioned all the others who, she thought, were

against capitalism: Nazis and Marxists, or the “mystics of muscle,” and religionists, or the

“mystics of spirit.” But even such “evil” philosophies should be studied, Rand argues, in “self-

protection” (p. 8). One should know everything about one’s enemy (i.e., his philosophical

position and moral code) in order to be able to achieve a strategic advantage over him and

“blast” his arguments. This is also true even of one’s friends, since no one can be completely

trusted in a critical situation, such as the Cold War. This strategy is well accepted by the military.

Being careful might avoid disaster, and taking extra risks that may lead to bad results is surely

not desirable. When fighting such powerful enemies one first needs to establish safety at home.

Rand additionally associates the spread and corruption of “evil” philosophies with

internal pathological tendencies: the enemies within the United States. She blames the

39

unprincipled youth for this calamity. Escaping reality, such as through drugs, is alike failing the

need of survival and thus life. Once such irrationality destroys one’s connection to reality and a

way to survive, one’s life is forfeited. One is not a human being any longer, not a rational animal.

A dangerous thing is “to surrender [your] moral autonomy to others,” stresses Rand (1982, p. 8,

original emphasis). And in the world where so many have succumbed to the dangerous

influences of mind-destroying philosophies, Rand and her followers cannot go on trusting

people, since they can no longer rely on all humans to act as rational animals. Their potential

companions-in-arms have fallen into a philosophical “booby trap” and are lost to reason. Yet,

Rand continues to promote the positive in her message:

In physical warfare, you would not send your men into a booby trap: you would make

every effort to discover its location. Well, Kant’s system is the biggest and most intricate

booby trap in the history of philosophy—but it’s so full of holes that once you grasp its

gimmick, you can defuse it without any trouble and walk forward over it in perfect safety.

And, once it is defused, the lesser Kantians—the lower ranks of his army, the

philosophical sergeants, buck privates, and mercenaries of today—will fall of their own

weightlessness, by chain reaction.

There is a special reason why you, the future leaders of the United States Army,

need to be philosophically armed today. You are the target of a special attack by the

Kantian-Hegelian-collectivist establishment that dominates our cultural institutions at

present. (p. 10, my emphases)

Thus we can clearly see that a false philosophy is a “booby trap,” and reason is a “tool” to help

us “defuse” the “booby trap” and live our true philosophy to the fullest. The enemy philosophy

has its own hierarchy and army.

Rand was very defensive of the military, and any kind of negative criticism of the armed

forces she took very seriously and tried to debunk and attack head on, such as when she wrote:

“Something called ‘the military-industrial complex’--which is a myth or worse--is being blamed

40

for all of this country’s troubles” (p. 10). She understood that the best strategy in war was to

attack rather than defend, and her attacks were often quite penetrating and visual:

. . . Bloody college hoodlums scream demands that R.O.T.C. units be banned from

college campuses. Our defense budget is being attacked, denounced and undercut by

people who claim that financial priority should be given to ecological rose gardens and to

classes in esthetic self-expression for the residents of the slums.

Some of you may be bewildered by this campaign and may be wondering, in

good faith, what errors you committed to bring it about. If so, it is urgently important for

you to understand the nature of the enemy. You are attacked, not for any errors or flaws,

but for your virtues. (p. 10ff., my emphases)

The enemies are “bloody” because they are emotional, unpredictable, and thus cause much

(conceptual) death and destruction. Their cause is against reason and thus directly conflicts with

the establishment that Rand promotes. They are undermining the conceptual protection that true

philosophy provides to the learned and common alike. The military is the means of defending the

physical establishment--means of defending capitalism.

Ayn Rand, more than anything, wanted to survive, truly survive, and she made survival

the constant of life. As long as the Eastern Bloc was there, she was going to engage in

philosophical war with them. She lived during an ideological crisis, a conflict of global

proportions, and at the irresolvable core of the conflict, as she believed, was individualism versus

collectivism, reason versus mysticism, life versus death. The conflict was waged on high moral

grounds--it is a conflict of philosophies, a conflict of free minds resisting being undermined,

corrupted, and destroyed. And finally, Philosophy Is War is fulfilled in the following passage,

and the armament is set in motion:

A battle of this kind requires special weapons. It has to be fought with a full

understanding of your cause, a full confidence in yourself, and the fullest certainty of the

moral rightness of both. Only philosophy can provide you with these weapons. (p. 11,

original italics, my underline)

41

4. Capitalism Is God’s Will Metaphor

Rand rarely speaks about God, but this does not stop movement conservatives from

identifying with her messages, especially in Atlas Shrugged. Being related to the previously

discussed metaphors as well as to the Strict Father morality depicted by conservatives

(subsequently discussed), the conceptual metaphor Capitalism Is God’s Will has the following

inferences (cf. Lakoff, 2014, p. 128): capitalism is absolutely right; capitalism is a moral system;

capitalism should rule; capitalism rewards virtue with power, righteous living with wealth, and

punishes sin; capitalism has laws that should be obeyed; capitalist laws define right and wrong; a

capitalist is a person who should be rational, morally strong, and self-disciplined; capitalism

requires faith and loyalty to follow its ideals; and it requires aggressive defense and needs to be

spread globally.

This conceptual metaphor is not used by Objectivists but is rather used by conservatives.

However, there are points of contact between the conceptual metaphors both use. Both share the

target domain (capitalism) but head toward it while using different terms. The search for Being,

or existence, is parallel to the search for God, as Lakoff and Johnson (1999) discuss in the

analysis of Aristotle’s philosophy (Ch. 18). Existence is everything, an all-inclusive category that

is above any determined existence. In a way, the axiom of existence can be viewed as a

secularized version of the prime mover concept. But even though it is meaningless to speak of

the “will” of existence, this idea can still be mapped onto capitalism by the concept of God.8

8 You would not be able to describe the whole of Objectivism without mentioning its most fundamental concepts, its three unquestionable axioms. Among the three, the first and most important one is simply the state of being that is outside of space and time. Anything is not existence, but only the “being” that is underneath (or above) all other concepts is the widest Objectivist concept--the implicit concept of existence. Existence is eternal but finite; it is, in itself, a causeless entity and the universe as a whole that, by its nature, causes everything else, including space and time (cf. Peikoff, 1991, Ch. 1; Rand & Peikoff, 1990, Ch. 6). However, existence is not consciousness nor

42

Although for movement conservatives God and man are hierarchically above nature, as

depicted in the Moral Order metaphor (Lakoff, 2002, Ch. 5), for Objectivists “nature is

existence” (Peikoff, 1991, p. 31) that people can dominate and use for profit, but only if they

obey its laws. “In Ayn Rand’s formulation, man ‘knows that he has to be right; to be wrong in

action means danger to his life; to be wrong in person, to be evil, means to be unfit for

existence’” (qtd. in Peikoff, 1991, p. 306, original emphases). Existence is thus related to life and

to Rand’s morality. Reason is what helps people to survive by relating them to existence. After

reason and purpose, the first two principles of Objectivism, comes self-esteem, evaluating one’s

ability and worthiness to survive. The breach, Peikoff (1991) assumes, comes from evaluating

yourself not against one’s life and thus existence but against “relation to others” (p. 308). This is

important because individualism is proclaimed by Objectivists to be naturally at the core of

capitalism, and this seems congruent with the movement conservative view.

The primary axiom of existence strengthens the belief that everything in the universe is

objectively comprehensible and everything can be explained by axiomatic relationships. After

all, Objectivism is a fully integrated philosophy that covers a wide spectrum of ideas and fields.

Although Objectivists believe that man’s survival is not guaranteed or automatic, their axioms

help guide them consistently and systematically. “‘If he is to succeed at the task of survival ...,’

Ayn Rand concludes, ‘man has to choose his course, his goals, his values in the context and

terms of a lifetime’” (qtd. in Peikoff, 1991, p. 217). The course of survival, as we have seen, is

the war in defense of capitalism.

is it conscious. Existence is reality and has the power of reality. At the same time it is the absolute base of Objectivist moralism and politics and thus serves the same purpose as the concept of God.

43

Objectivists are spiritualized by heroism in art. It is a concretization of personal

metaphysical standards. However, “the role of art is not didactic. . . To teach . . . is the task of

philosophy” (Peikoff, 1991, p. 422, original emphasis). In her speech, Rand only mentioned the

role of art in passing; and here is a greater elaboration on Objectivist art by Peikoff (1991):

Art, one may say, is concerned to “teach.” What it teaches, however, is not a theory, but a

technique, a technique of directing one’s awareness, directing it away from the

inconsequential and toward the metaphysically essential. Art thereby clarifies a man’s

grasp of reality. “In this sense,” Miss Rand writes, “art teaches man how to use his

consciousness. It conditions or stylizes man’s consciousness by conveying to him a

certain way of looking at existence.” (p. 423)

Art is “a selective re-creation of reality” with the “operative word” being here “selective”

(Peikoff, 1991, p. 423, original emphasis). Art provides a fundamental “focus on reality” (p.

423). Although specific tastes in art may differ, the exact nature of relationship to reality through

reason can never be in conflict among those who uphold realistic reason. All these conceptions

of art help reach a conclusion that art serves as a motivation or inspiration to fight for freedom

and capitalism and through the fully integrated philosophy to teach others the need for this fight.

And metaphors play a role in this too. In artistic representations of reality, “[t]he purpose of

metaphors, or comparisons, is epistemological” (Rand, 2000, p. 141), that is, they “should

manipulate properly the consciousness” of your audience (Rand, 2001, p. 112).

Capitalism and morality are related to the movement conservatives in a way similar to

Objectivists because both have enemies that are the ideological enemies of capitalism. What the

conservatives missed before was that the conflict with communists was waged on philosophical

rather than religious grounds. Ethics, as Rand argued, must be grounded in philosophy, not

religion. Nonetheless, movement conservatives were able to connect their faith in God with the

outcome of individualist ethics, namely, capitalism. “[T]he political division,” George Lakoff

44

writes about the state of politics today, “is a moral division. . . [and] is ultimately a family-based

division” (Lakoff, 2002, p. ix). Lakoff explores how American people view politics

unconsciously and conventionally, and how such concepts of government are based on their

familial upbringing and child-rearing practices. Lakoff argues that the conservatives follow the

Strict Father family metaphor, in which Government Is Strict Father and Citizens Are Children.

“The Strict Father model takes as background the view that life is difficult and that the world is

fundamentally dangerous” (p. 66). This political frame entails various other metaphors about

morality in a particular order, starting with Well-being as Wealth metaphor.

Fundamental to the perception of morality in economic relations and Capitalism as God’s

Will is the perception of Well-being as Wealth and the Moral Accounting metaphor (Lakoff,

2002, pp. 44-54). These metaphors involve the Morality Is Strength metaphor that entails being

moral as being upright and being immoral as being low. Both use physical orientation of our

bodies to visualize the importance of having a sufficient moral will to stand up for what one

believes in. It translates into the kind of intellectual posture that is required to grasp reality,

which Rand referred to in her speech. The anti-realist drug addicts from Rand’s speech are

morally weak and low, lower than human beings in the moral, natural order of things, where the

moral order is the natural order, and thus their human qualities can be easily ignored. The

retributive correlate to these metaphors is based on the legitimate authority of the police, courts,

and the military. Keeping the moral books in this fashion means to increase one’s “gains,”

decrease “losses” or “costs,” and equally “pay back” the harm that is done. Applying the same

metaphor to corrupt nations, the enemy governments must be justly punished for their tyrannical

regimes that enslave their citizens. The problematic individuals and the evil governments are

45

caused by evil philosophies, such as Kant’s morality. The metaphors that are not accepted by

movement conservatives or Objectivists are Altruism and Turning the Other Cheek because they

do not fit the aggressive stance that is based on retribution and punishment justly deserved for

evil deeds. In the Morality of Retribution, honorable people pay their moral debts, and for this

they receive respect. The morality of honor is the consequence of the morality of retribution.

Challenged honor must be defended, and harms must be paid back to those who initiated them or

assaulted the injured party, and the payment must be given in equal amount in order to rebalance

the moral books.9

Intransigent, principled integrity in Objectivism equals righteousness. If one has not

“sinned” against reason and did not close one’s eyes on reality, one can be considered a moral

person. Being such a person requires self-discipline. “Being self-disciplined is being obedient to

your own authority, that is, being able to carry out the plans you make and the commitments you

undertake” (Lakoff, 2002, p. 68). The father is the literal authority in the Strict Father

households, and in Objectivism the father is also the figure of authority favored for his strength.

With the type of physical and moral strength this figure entails, Objectivists and movement

conservatives see capitalist government as a strict but protective father in charge of the military,

courts, and the police. Strictness in disciplining oneself and following legal authority is required

to survive in the highly competitive and dangerous world. Government that protects the rights of

its citizens and does not interfere with them in any way is the right government. Government

must be employed by its citizens and not the other way around. The rational citizens employ

9 See more in Lakoff and Johnson (1999, Ch. 14).

46

government that can hold monopoly on the just use of force only in retaliation against criminals

and only in defense of its citizens.

Like God holding the moral responsibility for the well-being of its children, government

“has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force;

and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and

circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be

an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power” (Rand & Branden, 1964, p. 104).

On the other hand, capitalists behave according to their human natures. Following the law of

identity, “[a] person with integrity also acts according to his nature; there is nothing artificial or

contrived about him” (Lakoff, 2002, p. 91).

Corresponding to the Objectivist principles of Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem, the

Strict Father model shows that “without the morality of the pursuit of self-interest, there would

be no moral link between self-discipline and self-reliance” (Lakoff, 2002, p. 94). Although

Objectivists have some common views with liberals, such as being pro-choice on abortion, their

metaphorical worldview is much closer to the conservatives’ view. In the Objectivist ethics,

morality as a pursuit of self-interest takes an idealistic moral focus. The morality of self-interest

(as a means to moral ends) is a priority for Objectivists, and that is why it takes a higher position

in the Strict Father model, next to Moral Authority in the general conservative order of

metaphors. The morality of self-interest works when one does not conflict with others (by using

reason) and does not let others do something for the sake of oneself. Neither government nor

other people should interfere with one’s freedom to work for one’s own good. This metaphor is

seen in John Galt’s oath from Atlas Shrugged (2009): “I swear by my life and my love of it that I

47

will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” Hence

movement conservatives can use Objectivist arguments for capitalism because Objectivist and

movement conservative worldviews are aligned, even if they are different in details. The link

between free-market capitalism and the Strict Father model is the morality of self-interest

(Lakoff, 2014, p. 24).

Ayn Rand gave her speech at West Point praising the military’s might. This is salient

because Lakoff (2002) also attributes this to the Strict Father model, when he writes that “the

military represents the strength of the nation, and strength has the highest priority in the Strict

Father model. Moreover, the military itself is structured by Strict Father morality” (p. 193). The

movement conservatives support the military while the militaristic culture is deeply entailed in

Philosophy Is War metaphor. The Strict Father metaphor is also implied in a variety of moral

metaphors involving authority, strength, obedience, self-interest, and others. Moral freedom is

very important, since a person must be self-reliant and no one should be interfering with his or

her goals. Rand upholds the Moral Order and the Strict Father model of the family when asking

the West Point cadets to follow the model of Moral Strength, self-discipline, and natural

dominance. Moral empathy from the Nurturant Parent morality, on the other hand, does not show

in her speech.

Capitalism Is God’s Will combines in conservative mindset the metaphor of Moral Order

Is Dominant Order with the Objectivist metaphor of Morality Is Self-interest. From these ideas,

capitalism is derived as the perfect political system.

It is this religious system of reward and punishment that . . . [is] claimed (through

metaphor) to be the same as laissez-faire free-market capitalism. What conservative

Christians have done is two things. They have given the Bible an interpretation in terms

48

of Strict Father morality and they have, through metaphor, linked that interpretation of

the Bible with conservative politics. (Lakoff, 2002, p. 252)

Thus, the Strict Father interpretation of God as Father (and authority) and Well-being as Wealth,

among others, link with free-market capitalism being God’s will. The conservatives’ political

motivation was parallel with Rand’s ultimate identification implied in her concept of existence

being the supreme axiom. Their consubstantiality was in axiomatic knowledge beyond

contradictions, the conviction of reality beyond mind, yet reality that lies at the foundation of the

perspective narrowing in on capitalism as the way of life, and this was the unquestionable Truth.

As with Objectivists, physical evidence always follows the metaphysical truth (the reality) unless

some evidence is given by the enemy in order to deceive and destroy the moral and natural order

of things. And the conservatives, identifying with Rand’s authoritative and experiential view on

socialism, could not let the enemy do that.

Although critics find much inconsistency in Objectivism, Objectivism has a consistent

system of logic and an overall stable philosophical system that is attractive to movement

conservatives. The interest in principled rational (objective) over the unprincipled irrational

(subjective) beliefs is what’s primarily shared between Objectivists and movement

conservatives. In order to strengthen their religious beliefs, these conservatives find in

Objectivism a deep philosophical support that draws upon their shared ideals, albeit there are

harsh Objectivist criticisms of the conservatives’ religion and even a perceived threat of them

ascending to totalitarian power (see Peikoff, 2012a, Ch. 15-16). However, Rand’s vision of

capitalism at the end of Atlas Shrugged captivates conservatives’ imagination. While the ascent

to God’s state is near, the distrust of the morally weak, motivated by the failure of socialism, is

49

reflected in the prophetic allegory of reality that Rand so masterfully crafted in her essay and

speech.

Orality played an important role in the spread of Objectivism. Many monologues are not

only found in Rand’s written fiction, but also the dissemination of much of Objectivism from its

beginnings was dependent on speeches or recordings. A series of lectures on tape and in-person

rapidly expanded the influence of Rand’s institute in the 60s (Burns, 2009, Ch. 6). The

Aristotelian, peripatetic nature of Objectivism shows in various appearances, speeches, and other

in-person communications and in the Objectivist lectures that still continue today. The leading

Objectivist scholar, Leonard Peikoff, has already given, since the 60s, at least 24 lecture series,

some of which individually spanned up to 10 sessions. In addition, over 30 of his other

recordings, including from his radio talk show, can be purchased from the Ayn Rand Institute

eStore (https://estore.aynrand.org). Peikoff’s official blog posts, on peikoff.com, are also aural

(i.e., in the form of podcasts) rather than written. Many of Rand’s and Peikoff’s non-fiction

books were based on transcripts of their lectures, and most, if not all, of their books, fiction and

non-fiction alike, are also available in accessible audio editions. In the tradition started by Rand,

many Objectivists continue giving lectures throughout the United States, and many find listening

to Objectivist lectures and books very convenient. Thus, secondary orality is inherent to

Objectivist messages.

Even arguments are seen by Objectivists as oral or casual. While among Objectivists only

written or oral presentations are considered, “arguing” with non-Objectivists is “an informal

process as it takes place in a drawing room, in an office, or at a party,” and this kind of arguing is

“more or less chaos” (Peikoff, 2013, p. 217). An argument, therefore, functions as a preview of

50

Objectivist ideas to interest an opponent without, probably, “converting” him or her. And this

“back-and-forth discussion” will only strengthen Objectivist’s convictions and demonstrate the

opponent’s “impotence” (Peikoff, 2013, p. 218). Overall, the Objectivist argument is from the

point of view of those who know the truth and do not eschew aggressive dissemination of their

ideas and judgments. The Objectivist mode of persuasion is similar to that of an oral culture, and

it is interesting to note the dependence of Objectivism on orality.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Ayn Rand has invented a new and powerful view of reality and expressed it through her

metaphor that we live in an alien world. Her view of philosophy for living (and surviving) on

earth is accepted by many individuals, including those who have political influence. Nonetheless,

the intended identification limited the overall success of Objectivism to persuade, while its actual

persuasion aims at absolute and universal adherence. Only individuals who support classical,

Aristotelian logic are candidates. And another important (unconscious) entailment for acceptance

is the conceptual, metaphorical views on life and philosophy. The concentration on pure logic

and/or emotion programmed by logic as a computer may have led to society’s partial acceptance

of Objectivism, such as by movement conservatives in their own metaphor for capitalism and the

Strict Father model. More research could expose the social impact of Rand’s rhetoric and trace

the impact through the promulgations of the various groups that were inspired by Rand’s

philosophy.

In summary, in her speech and essay on philosophy titled “Philosophy: Who Needs It”

(1974), Rand suggests an analogy of an astronaut on an alien planet as a common individual in

daily life. By motivating the story with the three conceptual metaphors--Mind as Computer, Life

as a Battle, and Philosophy as War--she reframes a person’s experience into her own cognitive

interpretation of experience. She positions her philosophy as applicable to any practical issues

and able to save a person’s life by teaching him or her how to judge objectively. Aiming at

Burkean identification, she shows that the heroic qualities of her audience, such as courage,

52

honesty, and independence, are considered and upheld by her as virtues necessary for

capitalism.10 She argues that she draws support from correct premises of her philosophy rather

than the faulty premises of the philosophies of others (especially Kant), whose negative effect on

life in general is evident to her. This confidence in the correct premises for the right socio-

political system underpins the criticisms of conservatives in Rand et al. (1966), thus elucidating

the Objectivist position on capitalism. Rand uses a powerful new allegory to convince others of

the need for absolute, metaphysical (rather than dialectical) truths and thus reframes our

perception of living on earth. The Tea Party conservatives parallel Rand’s position and are thus

susceptible to her rhetoric, but they interpret her philosophy by using the Capitalism Is God’s

Will metaphor. The rhetoric of Rand’s writings is also directly connected to capitalism--the goal,

the motive, and the desire of all Objectivists.

Life as a Battle is used by Rand conceptually to maintain an aggressive stance during the

Cold War. Surviving and waging war against false philosophies, even implicitly, is what is

meant by “living.” Mind as Computer programmed by philosophy reinforces her stance.

Philosophy as War is vividly portrayed by Rand when she impels her audience to blast

arguments of her opponents; the competing philosophers are the army personnel who attack

virtues but support and defend duties. This virtues vs. duties war of morals is politically central

to Objectivism, “a philosophy for living on earth.”

10 In Atlas Shrugged, Rand mentions seven virtues: “rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride” (Rand, 2009). Being a speaker for capitalism, John Galt upholds these virtues, and this means that they pertain to ideal capitalists. These virtues are explained by three principles, from which they follow: Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem. For example, “[h]onor is self-esteem made visible in action” (Rand, 1982, p. 12).

REFERENCES

Aristotle. (2007). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (2nd ed.).

G. A. Kennedy. (Trans.). New York: Oxford UP.

Berggren, D. (1963). The Use and Abuse of Metaphor, II. The Review of

Metaphysics, 16(3), 450-472.

Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The Rhetorical Situation. In Carl R. Burgchart (Ed.), Readings in

Rhetorical Criticism (4th ed.; pp. 46-55). State College: Strata Publishing.

Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (Eds.). (2001). The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings

from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Branden, N. (1984). The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A

Personal Statement. Retrieved January 2, 2014, from

http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/

BenefitsAndHazards.html

Burke, K. (1941). The Rhetoric of Hitler’s “Battle.” In Carl R. Burgchart (Ed.),

Readings in Rhetorical Criticism (4th ed.; pp. 238-253). State College: Strata

Publishing.

Burke, K. (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkley: University of California Press.

Burns, J. (2009). Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right.

New York: Oxford University Press.

CEI/ARC Intellectual Ammunition Strategy Session. (2009, September 11).

Retrieved December 22, 2014, from http://www.eventbrite.com/e/

ceiarc-intellectual-ammunition-strategy-session-tickets-415812707

Cicero. (1971). Selected Works. London: Penguin Books.

Cox, S. (2007). Merely Metaphorical? Ayn Rand, Isabel Paterson, and the

Language of Theory. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 8(2), 237-260.

Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of

Public Moral Argument. In Carl R. Burgchart (Ed.), Readings in Rhetorical

Criticism (4th ed.; pp. 290-313). State College: Strata Publishing.

54

Fuhrmann, S. (2013, March 6). The Brazilian Metaphor LIFE IS A BATTLE. Retrieved

from http://justinrossow.com/2013/03/06/brazil-life-is-a-battle/

Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Mind as Computer: Birth of a Metaphor.

Creativity Research Journal, 9(2 & 3), 131-144.

Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (2nd ed.).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (2014). The ALL NEW Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values

and Frame the Debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind

and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lloyd, S. (2006). Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes

on the Cosmos. New York: Random House.

Peikoff, L. (1974). Introduction to Logic. Retrieved from

https://estore.aynrand.org/p/90/introduction-to-logic-mp3-download

Peikoff, L. (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

New York: Dutton.

Peikoff, L. (2012a). The DIM Hypothesis: Why The Lights Of The West Are Going

Out. New York: NAL.

Peikoff, L. (2012b). Understanding Objectivism: A Guide to Learning Ayn Rand's

Philosophy. M. S. Berliner. (Ed.) New York: NAL Trade.

Peikoff, L. (2013). Objective Communication: Writing, Speaking and Arguing.

B. Wood. (Ed.). New York: NAL Trade.

Perelman, C. (1982). The Realm of Rhetoric. W. Kluback. (Trans.)

Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Rand, A. (1982). Philosophy: Who Needs It. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co.

Rand, A. (2000). The Art of Fiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers. T.

Boeckmann. (Ed.). New York: Plume.

55

Rand, A. (2001). The Art of Nonfiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers. Robert

Mayhew. (Ed.). New York: Plume.

Rand, A. (2009). Atlas Shrugged. Portland: AudioFile.

Rand, A. (n.d.). Essentials of Objectivism. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from

http://ari.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_essentials

Rand, A., & Branden, N. (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of

Egoism [PDF file]. Retrieved December 31, 2014, from http://philo.abhinav.ac.in/

Objectivism/Ayn Rand - The Virtue of Selfishness.pdf

Rand, A., Branden, N., Greenspan, A., & Hessen, R. (1966). Capitalism:

The Unknown Ideal. New York: NAL.

Rand, A., & Peikoff, L. (1990). Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

(expanded 2nd ed.). H. Binswanger & L. Peikoff. (Eds.). New York: Meridian.

Rothbard, M. N. (1972). The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult. Retrieved July 27,

2014, from http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html